1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     i lost the last modicum of respect I had for the Court in the 2000 election.

    We all agree that Supreme Court makes mistakes for the wrong reasons.

    I guaratnee that if Nixon would have sued the State of Illinois, in 1960, and the Supreme Court gave instructions to the federal trial Court to do fact finding on those voting ballots floating in the Chicago waters, and that fact finding revealed that those votes changed the popular vote in the State of Illinois and resulted in Nixon being certfied as the winner of Illinois electoral votes, and Nixon beat the great philandering Irish Mob progressive at the time, who would now be considered a conservative unless he "evolved", you would have denounced the Supreme Court for allowing the "recount".

    "Progressive" political ideals are typically very tired and old and failed polcies that are regressive. But Leftists like to use words that resonate with the ignorant masses who depend on the State for their food, shelter and birth control and abortion as birth control needs and wants.

     



    This would run contrary to the voting patterns in modern America.  The poorest states vote Republican and in general have a more right-leaning rhetoric.  I would say its not the 'leftists' (whoever they are, cuz it sure aint corporate shills like Obama), but rather the right wing who uses words that resonate with the proletariat, what you call the 'ignorant masses' (elitist much?) that depend on state support.

     

     



    The masses are ignorant. Most people have no idea of what's going on in our country or in the world. 

     

     



    Again, I am heartened that we can agree on some things.

     




    I guess we are friends nowWink

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to WCPatsFan's comment:

     

    What a joke. Who cares. You are not privileged. Live your life. You don't need to come out. Just be yourself. Screw everyone else.

     

    Thic cartoon sums up the hypocrisy in the media and this country:

     

     



    I keep hearing folks making the Tebow-Collins analogy, but does anyone have an example of someone criticizing Tebow for  saying he's a Christian?

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

    In response to WCPatsFan's comment:

     

    What a joke. Who cares. You are not privileged. Live your life. You don't need to come out. Just be yourself. Screw everyone else.

     

     

    Thic cartoon sums up the hypocrisy in the media and this country:

     

     

     


    I keep hearing folks making the Tebow-Collins analogy, but does anyone have an example of someone criticizing Tebow for  saying he's a Christian?

     

     

     




    I just googled 'tim tibow critized for religion and came up with at least 10 pages of examples. I think it would be easier to do the googling than for me to send you to sites.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    I just googled 'tim tibow critized for religion and came up with at least 10 pages of examples. I think it would be easier to do the googling than for me to send you to sites.



    I am not doubting you, but I used the same five words and found nobody directly criticizing him for being a Christian. I saw several questioning whether he is being targeted because of h is faith, but none that I saw had any evidence. Could you provide one link?

    Again, I'm not doubting you and this is not a challenge. I sincerely have  never seen such an article.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    The basic problem you have is that you do not recognize gay Americans as a legitimate minority group that has been oppressed here for generations.

    The basic problem is that you attempt to use the artifice of "gay" to try and pretend that one particular subjective sexual behavioral proclivity is a valid basis to create the artifice of a physical identity that you want classified as a federal group class of persons. It's intellectually absurd, much less Constituionally absurd, to attempt to classify people based on sexual behavioral proclivity.

    Even today there are literally hundreds of laws that discriminate against them.

    Today, there are literally hundreds of laws which discriminate aginast people who make a lot of money, among other various motivations for legistlation and regulation initiatives.

    In some states its legal to fire gay employees just because they are gay.

    No one is "gay", in the context you attempt to use it in. It's legal for employers to fire persons who are married and have children, who can't lift heavy objects anymore.  It's legal to for employers to fire people for amost any reason, in most states. Why should the issue of sexual proclvity be placed on a higher government intervention priority than people who are fired for speaking out on social issues that the employer finds detrimental to it's commerce.  

    Is that fair Softy?

    I understand you believe in collectivism and a State imposed "fariness", but life isn't fair and the federal government doesn't have any Constitutional authority to adminster "fairness". I understand you have your views as to how the federal government should insure "fairness", and I'm quite sure that you do not consider the impact that your vision of "fairness" has beyong your nose.

    Most civilized countries are now passing appropriate laws aimed at correcting this,

    Right, like the "affirmative" action regulations that could only be enforced through quotas. Except, in the case, you are voting for elective representatives who pander to your vision of "fairness" for groups of people with certain types of shared sexual behavioral proclivity. Aside from the illegitimacy of identifying groups on that basis, it's completely impossible for any body politic to enforce such laws with violating both substantive due process and equal protection. Identity is the problem, my passionate utopian seeking fellow non-hater American.   

    and hopefully in June the Supreme Court will affirm what most of this country now believes is right. You are a real work of art Softy; not good art, but really bad art.

    Depends on who does the poll, but your attempt to intimidate certain members of the Supreme Court to cave in to populism (because you believe the winds are now down wind in your favor) is certainly part of the playbook of those seeking to advance the agenda of this issue. In June, the Supreme Court will either reject the intellectually and legally fraudulent notion that sexual behavioral proclivity and/or conduct is a basis for group class equal protection purposes to override the will of the people of various States or the representives laws of various States; or they will right new laws extra-Constitionally and follow the mold of the childish "trimester to determine life" intellectual fraud.

    Art is art, by definition. To subjectively say that it's "good" or "bad" speaks to your bigotry.

    I like how the bigoted Space called Tebow a "tool", which speaks volumes as to the state of his pride and prejudice.   

     




    After the supreme court voted to uphold obamacare I have little respect for them. 

     

     



    Oh good, at least on the issue of lost respect for the high court we can agree.  For different reasons of course.  i lost the last modicum of respect I had for the Court in the 2000 election.

     



    How bout that citizens united

     

    Wink

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    I just googled 'tim tibow critized for religion and came up with at least 10 pages of examples. I think it would be easier to do the googling than for me to send you to sites.


    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/03/11/Tebow-Liberty

    Here is one of many I found. You can find more on youtube



    I am not doubting you, but I used the same five words and found nobody directly criticizing him for being a Christian. I saw several questioning whether he is being targeted because of h is faith, but none that I saw had any evidence. Could you provide one link?

     

    Again, I'm not doubting you and this is not a challenge. I sincerely have  never seen such an article.

     




     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from 67redsox. Show 67redsox's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    I just googled 'tim tibow critized for religion and came up with at least 10 pages of examples. I think it would be easier to do the googling than for me to send you to sites.


    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/12/why-are-anti-christian-bigots-so-eager-to-prey-on-tim-tebow/

    There are many examples of how timbow was ridiculed for his faith



    I am not doubting you, but I used the same five words and found nobody directly criticizing him for being a Christian. I saw several questioning whether he is being targeted because of h is faith, but none that I saw had any evidence. Could you provide one link?

     

    Again, I'm not doubting you and this is not a challenge. I sincerely have  never seen such an article.

     




     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to 37stories' comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to michaelsjr's comment:

     

    Collins praised for coming out as gay.  Tebow vilified for coming out as devout Christian.  Why the double standard?

     

     



    Because Tebow is a tool.

     

     



    Wait...Tebow isn't gay?

     



    Of course not.  If he was, he'd be celebrated far and wide, instead if castigated for being religious.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to 37stories' comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to michaelsjr's comment:

     

    Collins praised for coming out as gay.  Tebow vilified for coming out as devout Christian.  Why the double standard?

     

     



    Because Tebow is a tool.

     

     



    Wait...Tebow isn't gay?

     

     



    Of course not.  If he was, he'd be celebrated far and wide, instead if castigated for being religious.

     



    If he were gay and Christian, he'd be forgiven - not that there'd be anything to forgive him  for.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    Yes, he has something to be forgiven for, as even some intoxicated same-sex proclivity as an identity zealots admit that is a sin according to the New and Old Testament. But I"m sure you are scholarly theologian who knows more than old hick fools like Billy Graham.



    I don't believe in fairy tales.  That includes the Old and New Testaments as well as Atlas Shrugged.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    The basic problem you have is that you do not recognize gay Americans as a legitimate minority group that has been oppressed here for generations.

    The basic problem is that you attempt to use the artifice of "gay" to try and pretend that one particular subjective sexual behavioral proclivity is a valid basis to create the artifice of a physical identity that you want classified as a federal group class of persons. It's intellectually absurd, much less Constituionally absurd, to attempt to classify people based on sexual behavioral proclivity.

    Even today there are literally hundreds of laws that discriminate against them.

    Today, there are literally hundreds of laws which discriminate aginast people who make a lot of money, among other various motivations for legistlation and regulation initiatives.

    In some states its legal to fire gay employees just because they are gay.

    No one is "gay", in the context you attempt to use it in. It's legal for employers to fire persons who are married and have children, who can't lift heavy objects anymore.  It's legal to for employers to fire people for amost any reason, in most states. Why should the issue of sexual proclvity be placed on a higher government intervention priority than people who are fired for speaking out on social issues that the employer finds detrimental to it's commerce.  

    Is that fair Softy?

    I understand you believe in collectivism and a State imposed "fariness", but life isn't fair and the federal government doesn't have any Constitutional authority to adminster "fairness". I understand you have your views as to how the federal government should insure "fairness", and I'm quite sure that you do not consider the impact that your vision of "fairness" has beyong your nose.

    Most civilized countries are now passing appropriate laws aimed at correcting this,

    Right, like the "affirmative" action regulations that could only be enforced through quotas. Except, in the case, you are voting for elective representatives who pander to your vision of "fairness" for groups of people with certain types of shared sexual behavioral proclivity. Aside from the illegitimacy of identifying groups on that basis, it's completely impossible for any body politic to enforce such laws with violating both substantive due process and equal protection. Identity is the problem, my passionate utopian seeking fellow non-hater American.   

    and hopefully in June the Supreme Court will affirm what most of this country now believes is right. You are a real work of art Softy; not good art, but really bad art.

    Depends on who does the poll, but your attempt to intimidate certain members of the Supreme Court to cave in to populism (because you believe the winds are now down wind in your favor) is certainly part of the playbook of those seeking to advance the agenda of this issue. In June, the Supreme Court will either reject the intellectually and legally fraudulent notion that sexual behavioral proclivity and/or conduct is a basis for group class equal protection purposes to override the will of the people of various States or the representives laws of various States; or they will right new laws extra-Constitionally and follow the mold of the childish "trimester to determine life" intellectual fraud.

    Art is art, by definition. To subjectively say that it's "good" or "bad" speaks to your bigotry.

    I like how the bigoted Space called Tebow a "tool", which speaks volumes as to the state of his pride and prejudice.   

     




    After the supreme court voted to uphold obamacare I have little respect for them. 

     

     



    Oh good, at least on the issue of lost respect for the high court we can agree.  For different reasons of course.  i lost the last modicum of respect I had for the Court in the 2000 election.

     



    That would be a BINGO except for the fact that they did the right thing with Obamacare. No need to debate this with Softy. It would be an endless endeavor. We will not change his mind; he will not change ours. I do believe that common decency and fairness are on our side however.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SFBostonFan. Show SFBostonFan's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:

     

    There are still way too many evil, creepy insecure Biblephobes

    The only thing to fear about the Bible (which for the most part is a laugh-fest) is its teachings being forced on others by religious zealosts.

    It is quite creepy for a professional athlete to wait until impending FA to pronounce his current sexual proclivity,

    If his "sexual proclivity" was heterosexual, I doubt his making it known in public would be considered "creepy."

     



    This all boils down to those who don't like christians.  I'm called vile names because I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. 

     

    Because progressives control the country and the media you believe you can bully christians,  you feel empowered.  Have at it.  God is my defender, I have nothing to fear.

     



    Progressives control the country because it is a democracy and the movement of people in this particular democracy tends toward progress:  away from bigotry wrapped in the name of God (blasphemy in its most egregious form) and towards tolerance and undertsanding.  

     

     



    Progressives control this country because we have become a welfare country.  So many people are getting so many free handouts. They of course keep voting in the hand that feeds them. We are progressing towards a socialist nation.  As Margaret Thatcher once said socialism lasts as until you run out of other people's money.  Enjoy what you have while you have it.  Socialism never has worked and it never will.

     

     



    Welp, if you think what we have in this country is anything remotely akin to socialism, its a good thing we dont have a dead red pinko commie like Reagan or Nixon running the show.

     

     




    We are progessing toward socialism, we are not there yet but we are fast approaching.  We are trillions in debt with no end in sight.  Good luck with that.  Look at greece and spain.  Look at states that have a lot of debt. Not good. This is where progressives are taking us.  If we continue on this road we will all be toast.  There will be a level playing field at last but you won't like it.

     ============================================

    Nikita Khrushev Quote September 29, 1959



    DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN HE APPEARED AT THE U.N. AND HIT HIS SHOE ON THE PODIUM?


    THIS WAS HIS QUOTE:

    "Your children's children will live under Communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; We'll So Weaken Your Economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.

    WE'RE ALMOST THERE!!!

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

    The basic problem you have is that you do not recognize gay Americans as a legitimate minority group that has been oppressed here for generations.

    The basic problem is that you attempt to use the artifice of "gay" to try and pretend that one particular subjective sexual behavioral proclivity is a valid basis to create the artifice of a physical identity that you want classified as a federal group class of persons. It's intellectually absurd, much less Constituionally absurd, to attempt to classify people based on sexual behavioral proclivity.

    Even today there are literally hundreds of laws that discriminate against them.

    Today, there are literally hundreds of laws which discriminate aginast people who make a lot of money, among other various motivations for legistlation and regulation initiatives.

    In some states its legal to fire gay employees just because they are gay.

    No one is "gay", in the context you attempt to use it in. It's legal for employers to fire persons who are married and have children, who can't lift heavy objects anymore.  It's legal to for employers to fire people for amost any reason, in most states. Why should the issue of sexual proclvity be placed on a higher government intervention priority than people who are fired for speaking out on social issues that the employer finds detrimental to it's commerce.  

    Is that fair Softy?

    I understand you believe in collectivism and a State imposed "fariness", but life isn't fair and the federal government doesn't have any Constitutional authority to adminster "fairness". I understand you have your views as to how the federal government should insure "fairness", and I'm quite sure that you do not consider the impact that your vision of "fairness" has beyong your nose.

    Most civilized countries are now passing appropriate laws aimed at correcting this,

    Right, like the "affirmative" action regulations that could only be enforced through quotas. Except, in the case, you are voting for elective representatives who pander to your vision of "fairness" for groups of people with certain types of shared sexual behavioral proclivity. Aside from the illegitimacy of identifying groups on that basis, it's completely impossible for any body politic to enforce such laws with violating both substantive due process and equal protection. Identity is the problem, my passionate utopian seeking fellow non-hater American.   

    and hopefully in June the Supreme Court will affirm what most of this country now believes is right. You are a real work of art Softy; not good art, but really bad art.

    Depends on who does the poll, but your attempt to intimidate certain members of the Supreme Court to cave in to populism (because you believe the winds are now down wind in your favor) is certainly part of the playbook of those seeking to advance the agenda of this issue. In June, the Supreme Court will either reject the intellectually and legally fraudulent notion that sexual behavioral proclivity and/or conduct is a basis for group class equal protection purposes to override the will of the people of various States or the representives laws of various States; or they will right new laws extra-Constitionally and follow the mold of the childish "trimester to determine life" intellectual fraud.

    Art is art, by definition. To subjectively say that it's "good" or "bad" speaks to your bigotry.

    I like how the bigoted Space called Tebow a "tool", which speaks volumes as to the state of his pride and prejudice.   

     




    After the supreme court voted to uphold obamacare I have little respect for them. 

     

     



    Oh good, at least on the issue of lost respect for the high court we can agree.  For different reasons of course.  i lost the last modicum of respect I had for the Court in the 2000 election.

     

     



    That would be a BINGO except for the fact that they did the right thing with Obamacare. No need to debate this with Softy. It would be an endless endeavor. We will not change his mind; he will not change ours. I do believe that common decency and fairness are on our side however.




    Pump,

    How can somebody so right be so wrong? ;)  While you're right about most SOFT issues, Obamacare is a manifest cluster- _____________K!

    He said my healthcare bills would go down by $2500.00 / year?  They have easily increased by $2500.  If you don't already know that, you must have more money than you can count.  Way to defend the middle class Mr. Prez!

    Come on now Pump!  Try another tac!  This is a losing cause!

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to 67redsox's comment:


    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/03/11/Tebow-Liberty

    Here is one of many I found. You can find more on youtube

    This article quotes GLAAD as criticizing him for speaking at Liberty University and not addressing gay rights. I'm not saying I agree with that, but in no way is GLAAD  criticizing Tebow for being a Christian. And as I said earlier, I've heard nobody criticize  him for being a Christian.

     

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SFBostonFan. Show SFBostonFan's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    WOW... I really don't intend to start another politcal topic on a sports forum especially when our 3 Boston major teams won  but Pumpsie lives in California as I do and I wonder his comment on my comments that follow.

    Does anyone wonder why California is going bankrupt !!! 
    It’s not if this economy collapses but when.  Because I’m going to be 75 this year, the good news is I’m probably not going to live long enough to see the disaster. 
     
    We are underfunded in almost every state, county and city in the U.S. with few exception like Texas, North Dakota and a couple of others. This infrastructure will implode. You already see it – Riverside, Vallejo, Stockton bankruptcies.  The life blood of reducing unemployment is the opening of many small businesses but Obamacare will prevent many from expanding and making new hires.  People are finding out that their health insurance premiums are going to double or worse. Our Medicare premiums will be higher and we will have trouble finding a doctor.  There will long waits for appointments, treatments denied.  As I said, and I’m not being selfish but just realistic and lucky I’m older, when I find Doctor who won’t accept Medicare, I have the VA medical services, Doctors, Labs, Xrays, MRIs, Audio, Physical Therapy & the  Hospital as a backup.


    When you add 20 million people to the system, most of whom will have to be subsidized, our medical system will be overwhelmed.  Obama, I believe,  really  miscaluculated on this and  Democrats like Nancy Pelosi went along.  They don’t have a clue.  And if amnesty gets through and we legalize 12million illegals who can vote, the Democrats will dominate every election and the Republican party is done for at least my remaining lifetime.
     
    Pension  payments to retirees in many parts of the country is sinking the public schools. They spend more $ on paying retirement benefits then they do educating the kids and it’s going to get worse before it turns around.
     
    It unfortunately could be that the federal government will eventually default on its obligations even at today’s low rates. I’m guessing interest rates will not go much higher in a long time because the government will go into debt even faster if it does.  I always wanted to live off my investments and keep the principal secure by earning a decent interest rate.  Alas, I’m dipping  into principal even to pay my Income Taxes, to fund vacation trips, purchase a new car etc.  I may do what Errol Flynn suggested, die with $10 K in your estate having enough to bury yourself & even having your last check bounce(HA!).


    Right now they pay very low rates to borrowers but to repay debt at even 3% would triple the debt service to do that.  We can’t service our debt right now at a federal funds rate of 25 basis points.
     
    Liberalism will be our downfall.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    I don't believe in fairy tales. That includes the Old and New Testaments as well as Atlas Shrugged. 

    In fact, you are dependent on the "fairy tales" of Marx and Obama.



    I do like the Marx Brothers.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

    There are still way too many evil, creepy homophobes fascinated by others' sex lives, but all decent people simply don't care who other people sleep with.

    "homophobe" means "fear of the same". It's meaningless blather.

    There are still way too many evil, creepy insecure Biblephobes who are desperately seeking public attention and approval of their current sexual proclivty.

    It is quite creepy for a professional athlete to wait until impending FA to pronounce his current sexual proclivity, for a player who had a dubious NBA contract fture before he made his current sexual proclivity a media campaign.  



    Agreed; and his FA prospects didn't look promising. So basically he used his coming out for publicity, and to put pressure on someone to give him another contract.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

    In response to LloydDobler's comment:

     

    In response to WCPatsFan's comment:

     

    What a joke. Who cares. You are not privileged. Live your life. You don't need to come out. Just be yourself. Screw everyone else.

     

     

    Thic cartoon sums up the hypocrisy in the media and this country:

     

     

     


    I keep hearing folks making the Tebow-Collins analogy, but does anyone have an example of someone criticizing Tebow for  saying he's a Christian?

     

     

     

     




    I just googled 'tim tibow critized for religion and came up with at least 10 pages of examples. I think it would be easier to do the googling than for me to send you to sites.

     



    The reason Tebow is criticize is because of the combination of lack of talent, super star status, and the occasional diva mentality. He would be praised as the "real deal" if he allowed himself to be traded to a team that wanted him at TE/FB but instead he said he was a QB. The Christian bit only comes in play when people use it to bash some one like Collins or use it to detract from fair honest criticism. It is a text book fallacy.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Jason Collins

    In response to 67redsox's comment:

     

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    In response to softlaw2's comment:

     

     i lost the last modicum of respect I had for the Court in the 2000 election.

    We all agree that Supreme Court makes mistakes for the wrong reasons.

    I guaratnee that if Nixon would have sued the State of Illinois, in 1960, and the Supreme Court gave instructions to the federal trial Court to do fact finding on those voting ballots floating in the Chicago waters, and that fact finding revealed that those votes changed the popular vote in the State of Illinois and resulted in Nixon being certfied as the winner of Illinois electoral votes, and Nixon beat the great philandering Irish Mob progressive at the time, who would now be considered a conservative unless he "evolved", you would have denounced the Supreme Court for allowing the "recount".

    "Progressive" political ideals are typically very tired and old and failed polcies that are regressive. But Leftists like to use words that resonate with the ignorant masses who depend on the State for their food, shelter and birth control and abortion as birth control needs and wants.

     



    This would run contrary to the voting patterns in modern America.  The poorest states vote Republican and in general have a more right-leaning rhetoric.  I would say its not the 'leftists' (whoever they are, cuz it sure aint corporate shills like Obama), but rather the right wing who uses words that resonate with the proletariat, what you call the 'ignorant masses' (elitist much?) that depend on state support.

     

     



    The masses are ignorant. Most people have no idea of what's going on in our country or in the world. 

     

     



    But Breitbart does apparently.

    Look, in general, you're entititled to your opinion; but if part of your opinion is criticizing the opinions of others, expect to be criticized as well.

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share